Oh, it does? You let "scientific studies" (which are possibly manipulated by higher sources) dictate what you believe based on what you see with your own eyes? Talk about brainwashed.
Following the scientific process is but rational. Properly conducted analysis, avoiding the ad hoc and ensuring robust testing methods, is merely good sense. As one follows that process one can easily critique individual source and ensure sound literature methods that allow for objective evidence-based conclusion
I'm not denying it can be useful to take into consideration, but nothing beats personal research. There's a lot of lies and propaganda out there and even the most accurate scientific studies won't necessarily apply to a personal experience you may have in the future based on that issue.
Literature reviewing is 'personal research'. The important aspect is that there are quality control in the evidence sources utilised. This is of course guaranteed in scholarly research, given the referee process. The amusing aspect is that you're referring to one person's experience, whilst the authors' study is referring to 15,874 people (randomly chosen of course) Lies and propaganda are most comfortable with tabloidism. Note, for example, you haven't been able to offer one valid critique of the paper. You wish to dismiss it as it doesn't support your bias. That reflects a position that isn't based on evidence
Thoughts. Cognitive abilities change, especially with older people. So...their investigation establishes that cognitive ability (which changes in older people) is a reliable predictor of prejudice. So who were their test groups and .....are cons typically older people? Hopefully this isn't some sort of political schtick coming out before 2012 elections, cuz that would be bad...giving an image that cons are stupid and racist at such a pivotal politcal climate in America.
They use cohort data: the 1958 National Child Development Study and the 1970 British Cohort Study. Given its cohort data, age isn't going to be a problem. For example, there are approximately 9,000 participants in the first study and they are all born in the same week in April 1970. Its British analysis. It would be difficult to assume that its just British 'conservatism' though. I'd find that argument to be a little amusing though
Good lord. Libs and Cons are flipped to our N. American versions. Get out. Next you will be saying the Aussies are the same. Anyways, it is a nonsense piece sent as an email, the cognitive link was not even attempted by Hodson, and if I have a couple more drinks I'll travel the hour to his place and tell him what a dunce his liberal ass it. A Canadian prof, out of Brock of all universities no less (LOL) looking to be a shiny penny by slamming Cons/Repubs. Most of the blogs he links to are hooting it up on line...calling it crap and unsubstantiated of course....but having fun with screwing with cons. And minorites of course. These types of phoney elites always have to pawn minorities for the (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles. Carry on. What a waste.
You'd have to refer to party politics. However, that would be empty splurge as I'm not. Its published in one of the top psychology journals. The cognitive link of course is nothing new. The authors, for example, correctly reference the meta-analysis by Van Hiel et al (2010, The relationship between social-cultural attitudes and behavioral measures of cognitive style: A meta-analytic integration of studies, Journal of Personality, Vol. 78, pp. 17651799) which confirms the negative relationship between cognitive ability and right-wing ideologies. That's not of much interest. Its the ability of the authors to go further, in terms of ability and prejudice, which is of note (and why it was successful in getting through the peer review process in a highly competitive journal)
White men from Britain have nothing to teach American conservatives about race. Physician, heal thy self.
Sorry, not interested in inane comments irrelevant to the study and its repercussions for our understanding of prejudice. Bye
I think the problem with the study is that it's from the UK. The terms Right wing or conservative don't mean the same thing in Europe that they do in the US. Tories are not Republicans. Conservative or Right Wing in Europe is authoritarian, because there is a left/right consensus on a massive state presence. That's quite a bit different than the US where the left are the authoritarians.
Give me a grant and I can "prove" that left wing and Utopian ideology is not caused by thinking. Really? Now people that don't think the way you do are less intelligent? How often have we heard that from the left? I would say often. It seems to be part and parcel of left wing ideology to put people in categories of intelligence based on a number of things, one of them being race. Like when it is argued that voter ID is racist against blacks. Why? Because left wing ideology (liberals are predominantly white) thinks of blacks as less intelligent. I see no reason to categorize poor or blacks as stupid, unfortunate maybe, possibly less of an education, but not necessarily stupid. Just because the right does not concentrate on race as a primary issue does not mean they are racist, only that they do not think of race as a category to separate people by.
That isn't a problem. The choice of Britain reflects the riches of the cohort studies and the advantages for the methodology employed. These studies do not use party politics. Right wing authoritarianism, for example, provides an analysis that encompasses any country. Indeed, perusal of the available literature will show how its widely employed. The psychological experiments prove otherwise.
Can you? What data and methodology would you employ? Let's be honest here, you only have opinion and foot stamping. Right, in a sense. As I noted earlier, the meta-analysis by Van Hiel et al (2010, The relationship between social-cultural attitudes and behavioral measures of cognitive style: A meta-analytic integration of studies, Journal of Personality, Vol. 78, pp. 17651799) confirms the negative relationship between cognitive ability and right-wing ideologies. But that's not of interest for the thread: Its the ability of the authors to go further, in terms of ability and prejudice, which is of note
Something that struck me when we were discussing education elsewhere is that the key point about so many American rightists is that they barely read, especially literature, or see any good films - and I seriously doubt whether they played as children either. That means that they have never discovered any technique to begin to understand what life feels like for anyone else, and when this is joined with a self-righteous parody of Christianity, the result is pretty stupid - not because the people themselves are stupid but because they don't know how to apply intelligence to social life. It seems to me, as an idea, to make sense of why quite bright people can act like half-witted pigs.
We have seen in a host of areas where scientists who are leftists are quite happy to sell their credentials for political purity. Remember the nuclear winter and the nuclear holocaust that was imminent back in the fifties. Remember the movie "On the Beach"? Newspaper ads with a plethora of "scientists" testyfying that it was all inevitable unless the U.S. disarmed unilaterally. Remember the Rachel Carson/DDT fiasco that killed millions? More scientists who sold out. Remember global warming? Most of the racists I know are quite liberal politically. Other than strongly supporting black genocide via abortion they aren't interested in blacks but they purely hate jews. Their hatred for jews oozes from them like slime from a snail. The difference between liberals and conservatives has nothing to do with race. It has to do with total government control over individual freedom and the unwillingness to pay bills versus fiscal responsibility.
This is a standard low brow offering. You have a published peer reviewed article that uses data available to anyone. You can't refer to any empirical problem and therefore you try splatter dash. Try to be useful: is the relationship the outcome of some innate ability characteristic or, due to the difficulties in isolating education effects, is it the result of a lack of education?
Really? Don't care to address DDT? Don't care to address the inevitable nuclear holocaust due fifty year ago? There is no serious peer review on most of the issues. Scientists who don't follow the party line are, as in the USSR, blacklisted and ignored. Periodicals that publish articles contrary to the party line will be shunned. It's been years since we've had honest peer review. Politics first, last, and always. Try to be honest, Reiver. Your response is the standard self-appointed elitist drivel. How do you explain the racism of the liberal elitist?
Yep. Note that you can't make one relevant comment about the paper relevant to this thread. Its all empty foot stamping. Put that right! Refer to a problem with the paper's data? Perhaps refer to a limitation in its empirical methodology? What about a reference to a lack of robustness? It would be the intelligent thing to do!
Bigotry runs deep in some. You mistake your heightened sense of self importance and self labeled empathy for thinking when all you seem to understand is self. If you really had empathy or if you really could understand how other people think. You would not say such goofy things.
It sounds like you didn't understand, or just chose to ignore, my critique. What faction, in the United States, would fall under the category of" right wing authoritarianism?" Again, it may make sense in the UK, but in the US, the authoritarians are on the left, so your terms don't make any sense in our political context. Perhaps your worldview is too restricted and hidebound to view the world in other than a very limited and narrow options.
There wasn't one. You've gone for a simple humph irrelevant to the scholarly methodologies employed I don't care. This isn't about party politics No, I'm simply able to refer to the paper correctly. You need to think up a proper critique, rather than pretending with inane party politics
"Right wing authoritarianism" isn't a political party, so we're not talking about party politics. I'm thinking you can't define it.
